h 


Uarvclcsoap^  1— i 1 Sd  Y q 'r  y^~ 


WHAT  IS  “PROFESSIONAL”  PRACTICE  IN 
LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTURE  ? 

By  FREDERICK  LAW  OLMSTED 

PEOPLE  in  this  locality  don’t  want  to  pay  me  for  professional 
advice  unless  I will  carry  out  the  work.  How  can  I satisfy  them 
without  acting  unprofessionally  ?” 

“What  is  ‘professional’  and  what  is  ‘unprofessional’  for  a landscape 
architect  to  do  in  the  way  of  ‘executing  work’?” 

“Is  it  always  unprofessional  for  a landscape  architect  to  do  ‘contract- 
ing’?” 

These  are  representative  of  a class  of  questions  which  are  often 
asked  by  the  younger  landscape  architects  and  which  the  most  ex- 
perienced cannot  always  answer  clearly  and  without  hesitation. 

This  article  is  an  attempt  to  clarify  the  main  principles  involved 
in  all  such  questions.  With  a firm  grasp  of  these  principles  honesty 
and  common  sense  will  show  anyone  the  proper  answer  to  his  own 
particular  question. 

The  “Official  Statement”  of  the  American  Society  of  Landscape 
Architects  says  of  the  landscape  architect  in  good  professional  standing 
that:  “His  remuneration  is  an  openly  stated  compensation  received 
directly  from  his  client  for  services  rendered,  and  not  a speculative* 
profit  on  materials  supplied  or  labor  employed.”  It  further  says  that  he 
“supervises  the  execution  of  his  plans”  and  that  “He  acts  ...  as 
his  client’s  agent  in  selecting  and  ordering  materials  and  in  issuing 
instructions  for  the  execution  of  work  by  contractors  or  others.” 

Let  me  add  that,  while  nothing  is  said  about  it  one  way  or  the  other 
in  the  “Statement,”  the  reference  in  the  above  passages  to  “super- 
vision” and  to  “issuing  instructions”  cannot  be  interpreted  as  excluding 
personal  performance  of  mechanical  manual  labor  by  a landscape 

*As  originally  issued  the  “Statement”  read  “not  a commercial  profit.”  The  phrase  “speculative 
profit”  is  more  exact,  as  will  be  pointed  out  in  this  article,  and  the  Trustees  of  the  Society  have  voted 
to  recommend  the  amendment  of  the  “Statement”  as  here  quoted. 


133 


134 


LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTURE 


architect  or  his  assistants;  whether  that  labor  is  pushing  a pen,  or  cut- 
ting down  a tree  which  blocks  a view  that  he  wants  to  open  immediately 
(instead  of  waiting  until  he  can  find  a man  that  holds  a card  in  the 
Amalgamated  Axemen’s  Union). 

It  seems  clear  that  it  would  not  be  out  of  accord  with  the  letter  or 
the  spirit  of  the  above  passages  for  a landscape  architect,  at  the  request 
of  a client,  to  assume  responsibility  for  issuing  all  the  orders  necessary 
for  the  proper  execution  of  work,  even  though  in  so  doing  the  landscape 
architect  were  to  perform  substantially  all  the  managerial  and  executive 
functions  ordinarily  performed  by  a “contractor;”  provided  only  that 
“his  remuneration  is  an  openly  stated  compensation  received  from  his 
client  for  services  rendered  and  not  a speculative  profit  on  materials  or 
labor  employed.” 

As  I understand  it,  the  essentially  distinguishing  feature  of  “specula- 
tive profit”  or  “commercial  profit”  in  this  connection  is  that  the  amount 
of  such  profit  is  indeterminate,  is  not  accounted  for  to  the  party  who 
pays  it,  and  may  be  increased  to  any  extent  by  which  the  energy, 
skill  or  luck  of  the  contractor  enables  him  to  keep  the  cost  of  the  work 
or  materials  or  both  below  the  amount  for  which  he  contracted  to  get 
the  results  accomplished. 

It  is  clearly  unprofessional  for  a landscape  architect  to  take  a 
“lump  sum  contract”  or  a “unit  price  contract”  or  any  other  form  of 
contract  for  the  furnishing  of  “materials”  or  the  supplying  of  “labor” 
by  which  he  becomes  obligated  to  produce  a result  for  a certain  price 
and  is  entitled  to  whatever  margin  of  profit  there  may  be  between  the 
actual  cost  of  achieving  that  result  and  the  price  for  which  he  contracted 
to  produce  it.  It  is  not  in  itself  essentially  and  inevitably  unprofessional 
for  him  to  undertake  a “cost  plus”  contract,  by  which  he  agrees  to  act 
as  the  agent  of  the  client  in  bringing  about  the  execution  of  his  plans, 
provided  his  compensation  over  and  above  his  reimbursement  for 
authorized  and  accounted  for  expenditures  on  behalf  of  the  client  is  a 
known  amount,  which  may  be  either  a lump  sum,  or  a fee  based  upon 


WHAT  IS  “PROFESSIONAL”  PRACTICE 


135 


time  (such  as  a per  diem  charge  or  other  periodic  charge  or  salary)  or  an 
agreed  percentage.  There  are  some  objections  to  fixing  that  compensa- 
1 tion  by  a percentage  on  the  cost  of  the  work,  but  it  cannot  be  said  that 
such  a basis  is  in  itself  unprofessional. 

To  make  the  matter  clearer  I will  set  forth  successive  extensions  of 
the  field  of  activity  under  an  agency  contract.  But  first  let  me  remove  a 
frequent  source  of  misunderstanding  in  the  use  of  the  words  “con- 
tractor” and  “contracting,”  and  point  out  the  essential  nature  of  an 
agency  contract  as  distinguished  from  the  type  of  contract  of  which  the 
familiar  “lump  sum  contract”  is  representative. 

A contract  is  “any  agreement  between  two  or  more  parties  for  the 
doing  or  the  not  doing  of  some  definite  thing.”  Every  professional  man 
enters  into  a contract,  expressed  or  implied,  whenever  he  accepts  employ- 
ment; and  is  therefore  strictly  speaking  a contractor.  But  the  words 
“contractor”  and  “contracting”  are  often  used  more  or  less  colloquially, 
to  connote  a particular  kind  of  contract.  Unfortunately  when  used  in 
this  limited  colloquial  way  their  connotation  is  apt  to  be  differently 
understood  by  different  people.  Some  people  habitually  understand 
them  as  referring  only  to  “lump  sum  contracts”  and  “unit  price  con- 
tracts,” especially  for  the  execution  of  buildings  and  works  of  engineer- 
ing and  landscape  architecture;  but  many  whose  main  business  is 
“contracting”  in  this  limited  sense,  also  undertake  similar  works  under 
“agency  contracts,”  especially  under  contracts  of  the  “cost  plus  per- 
centage” type;  and  there  are  some  who  do  such  work  exclusively  under 
“agency  contracts”  and  who  are  nevertheless  colloquially  called  “con- 
tractors.” 

Under  an  agency  contract  the  contractor,  so  long  as  he  acts  within 
the  limits  of  his  authorization,  need  assume  no  financial  responsibility 
on  his  own  account  and  acts  strictly  as  an  agent  of  his  principal.  Any 
claim  for  payment  on  account  of  services  rendered  or  requested,  or  goods 
delivered  or  ordered,  or  damages  sustained,  as  a result  of  his  action  as 
agent  (within  the  scope  of  his  authorization  by  his  principal)  is  a claim 


136 


LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTURE 


not  against  him  personally  but  against  his  principal,  by  whose  authority 
and  on  whose  account  he  acts.  His  authorization  may  limit  the  total  of 
expenditures  for  which  he  may  contract  with  others  on  behalf  of  his 
principal;  but  it  cannot  at  the  same  time  obligate  him  to  produce  certain 
results  within  that  sum.  It  can  only  require  him  to  stop  incurring  obliga- 
tions when  the  limit  of  the  appropriation  is  reached,  whether  the  pro- 
posed result  has  been  accomplished  or  not.  If  as  a result  of  his  legitimate 
action  (within  the  scope  of  his  authorization)  damages  are  incurred,  his 
principal  is  liable  for  those  damages  even  though  they  exceed  the  amount 
of  the  appropriation  within  which  he  was  instructed  to  keep  the  cost  of 
the  work.  He  is  obligated  to  use  due  diligence  and  skill  in  protecting 
his  principal’s  interest,  but  guarantees  nothing  beyond  that. 

The  lump-sum  contractor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  his  own  principal, 
and  undertakes  to  produce  for  the  other  party  to  the  contract  a more  or 
less  well  defined  result  for  a certain  sum.  He  hires  and  fires  on  his  own 
account,  buys  goods  on  his  own  account  and  enters  into  other  contracts 
on  his  own  account.  Claims  for  payment  growing  out  of  his  actions, 
including  claims  for  damages  sustained  as  a result  of  his  action,  are 
claims  against  him  and  not  against  the  other  party  to  the  contract.  He 
takes  a speculative  risk,  and  he  makes  a speculative  profit  if  he  can, 
and  as  large  as  he  can.  He  is  not  accountable  to  the  other  party  to  the 
contract  for  the  amount  of  that  profit  nor  for  the  actual  cost  of  the 
work.  He  is  in  the  position  of  the  speculative  purchaser  of  any  com- 
modity who  sells  it  as  best  he  can,  accepting  a loss  if  he  must,  and 
making  all  the  profit  he  can  in  the  face  of  the  competition  of  others. 

There  need  be  nothing  in  the  least  degree  unfair  or  dishonorable  in 
this  relation  of  a speculative  contractor  or  vendor  to  his  customers. 
But  such  a relation  is  absolutely  incompatible  with  the  fiduciary  relation 
which  a professional  landscape  architect  assumes  to  his  client,  because 
the  essence  of  that  relation  is  the  obligation  which  he  assumes  to  protect 
his  client’s  legitimate  interests  in  the  matters  at  issue  to  the  best  of  his 
ability.  He  can  not  run  with  the  hare  and  hunt  with  the  hounds.  If 


WHAT  IS  “PROFESSIONAL”  PRACTICE ? 


137 


\ 


he  tries  it,  under  whatever  pretext  or  in  whatever  form,  he  is  not  merely 
acting  unprofessionally;  he  is  outright  dishonest. 

Now  let  us  return  to  the  scope  of  what  may  be  undertaken  by  a 
professional  landscape  architect  under  an  agency  contract. 

It  is  a frequent  arrangement  for  a landscape  architect,  especially 
upon  small  or  upon  complicated  and  delicate  work,  to  recommend  to  a 
client  the  employment  of  superintendents  or  foremen  in  whom  he  has 
confidence,  to  advise  or  direct  them  in  their  employment  of  laborers  and 
artisans,  to  direct  their  work,  to  order  materials  for  the  client,  and  to 
check  and  recommend  for  payment  by  the  client  the  payrolls  and  bills 
as  they  become  due.  Less  frequently  the  landscape  architect  may 
receive  deposits  of  cash  in  advance  from  the  client  and  draw  upon  them 
for  payment  of  bills  and  payrolls  on  the  client’s  account  as  they  become 
due,  submitting  vouchers  to  the  client  subsequently  when  he  accounts 
for  expenditures  made.  Still  less  frequently,  but,  so  far  as  I can  see, 
without  any  essential  change  in  the  character  of  the  relationship,  he 
may,  if  so  requested,  borrow  the  funds  from  a bank  or  other  source  of 
credit  and  make  similar  payments  on  the  client’s  account,  charging  up 
interest  payments  on  these  borrowed  funds  as  part  of  the  cost  of  the 
operation,  and  accounting  as  before  with  proper  vouchers  for  all 
expenditures.  Finally  he  might  furnish  the  funds  out  of  his  own 
capital,  and  charge  interest  thereon  as  a banker  would  do.  If  in  the 
latter  case  his  charges  for  interest  on  the  capital  advanced  were  not 
segregated  but  were  lumped  with  certain  other  overhead  expenses  in  the 
general  charge  for  his  services,  he  would  be  precisely  in  the  position 
of  the  ordinary  “cost-plus”  contractor,  and  if  the  charge  for  thus 
furnishing  the  capital  and  his  other  services  be  reasonable  and  clearly 
defined  in  advance,  it  is  difficult  to  see  exactly  how  he  has  crossed  the 
Rubicon  and  entered  the  field  of  clearly  and  inherently  unprofessional 
conduct. 

Take  notice  that  I do  not  approve  such  a procedure  as  a general  one 
for  landscape  architects,  for  reasons  which  I will  set  forth.  But  I do 


138 


LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTUR 


say  that  even  such  an  agency  contract  as  the  last  seems  to  me,  in  strict 
logic  not  necessarily  unprofessional  per  se  in  special  cases. 

The  primary  objection  as  a practical  matter  to  extending  the  scope 
of  a landscape  architect’s  business  far  in  that  direction  is  that  it  involves 
a constantly  increasing  emphasis  upon  purely  executive  and  managerial 
activities,  the  devotion  of  a constantly  increasing  share  of  his  time  and 
energy  to  such  activities,  and  a corresponding  reduction  of  the  share  of 
his  time  and  energy  devoted  to  problems  of  design. 

Now  the  reason  for  the  existence  of  a profession  of  landscape  archi- 
tecture is  to  provide  people  highly  skilled  in  the  Art  of  Design  applied 
to  landscape  problems,  and  having  sufficient  executive  ability  to  secure 
the  effective  realization  of  their  designs.  And  in  so  far  as  development 
of  his  executive  activities  tends  to  withdraw  emphasis  from  a landscape 
architect’s  function  as  a designer,  and  materially  diminishes  that  effec- 
tive concentration  upon  problems  of  design  which  is  the  only  means  of 
developing  his  skill  therein,  it  tends  to  convert  him  from  a landscape 
architect  into  something  else — commonly  called  a contractor — irrespec- 
tive of  whether  he  practices  contracting  in  a professional  manner  under 
agency  contracts  or  whether  he  practices  it  commercially  and  specu- 
latively under  lump  sum  or  unit  price  contracts. 

The  same  sort  of  reasons  which  make  desirable  the  degree  of  special- 
ization that  distinguishes  landscape  architects  from  architects,  and  that 
distinguishes  both  of  them  from  engineers,  make  it  highly  important  to 
maintain  and  develop  the  specialization  and  separation  of  landscape 
architects  from  “contractors.”  Under  circumstances  which  make  it 
difficult  or  impossible  to  obtain  the  services  of  competent  “contractors” 
for  landscape  work,  a landscape  architect  is  justified  in  going  further  in  j 
assuming  executive  responsibilities,  professionally  and  as  an  agent,  j 
than  is  ordinarily  wise  or  proper;  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  even  j 
where  competent  contractors  are  scarce  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  pro- 
fession and  of  its  clients  to  develop  good  landscape  contractors  rather 
than  to  discourage  their  development  by  performing  the  functions  proper 


WHA 1 IS  “PROFESSIONAL”  PRACTICE? 139 

to  them  in  combination  with  the  special  functions  peculiar  to  landscape 
architects. 

In  other  words  a landscape  architect  ought  to  keep  clear  of  under- 
taking, even  in  a professional  manner,  the  executive  functions  proper 
to  a “contractor”  just  as  far  as  he  can  do  so  without  manifest  and 
substantial  injury  to  the  interests  which  are  confided  to  him  by  his 
clients. 

Looking  at  the  matter  from  the  most  selfish  point  of  view,  it  is 
normally  a short-sighted  policy  on  the  part  of  the  landscape  architect 
to  undertake  what  are  properly  “contractor’s”  functions,  for  the  mere 
sake  of  earning  the  compensation  which  goes  with  these  extra  jobs,  or 
even  through  an  easy-going  acquiescence  in  the  request  of  a client,  just 
as  it  would  be  to  undertake  the  functions  of  a real  estate  agent  or  a hotel 
keeper.  Working  at  such  “side  lines”  is  apt  to  seem  a confession  that 
he  can  not  earn  his  salt  as  a landscape  architect,  and  it  certainly  tends 
to  spread  him  out  so  thin  as  to  lose  the  advantages  which  come  from 
proper  professional  specialization.  This  is  not  the  day  of  the  Jack-at- 
all-trades  who  is  master  of  none. 

The  foregoing  discussion  should  have  made  it  clear  that  there  is  no 
simple  criterion  by  which,  under  all  circumstances,  the  line  can  be 
sharply  drawn  between  what  a landscape  architect  can  properly  do  in 
the  execution  of  his  designs  and  what  he  should  not  do.  Experience  has 
shown,  however,  that  there  are  certain  critical  points  which  should  be 
regarded  as  red  flags,  marking  dangers  that  ought  not  to  be  incurred  by 
a landscape  architect  without  the  most  careful  and  meticulous  considera- 
tion of  the  circumstances  of  the  particular  case,  lest  he  get  himself  into 
a false  position;  a position  either  essentially  unprofessional  or  likely  to 
appear  so  to  others  in  the  absence  of  a much  fuller  explanation  than  is 
usually  possible. 

One  of  these  danger  points  is  the  disbursement  of  his  own  funds  by 
a landscape  architect  for  materials  delivered  to  a client  either  through 
him  or  direct.  Such  disbursement  may  be  entirely  aboveboard  and  fully 


understood  and  accounted  for  between  him  and  his  client;  but  it  is 
regular  and  usual  step  in  the  mechanism  of  purchase  and  sale  for  persona 
commercial  profit,  and  as  such  ought  to  be  avoided  by  the  professional 


140 


LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTURE 


man.  It  is  practically  always  possible  to  avoid  it;  as  by  inducing 
the  client,  if  necessary,  to  establish  a drawing  account  from  which 
payments  or  advances  are  to  be  made  on  the  order  of  the  landscape 
architect. 

In  the  rare  instances  where  a landscape  architect  cannot  properly 
and  reasonably  avoid  drawing  checks  in  payment  for  plants  or  other 
materials  purchased  for  a client,  it  is  desirable,  in  order  to  make  the 
relationship  clear,  to  open  a separate  bank  account  and  sign  the  checks; 
as  “Agent  for .” 

The  same  considerations  apply  to  payments  by  the  landscape  archi- 
tect on  account  of  other  contracts  entered  into  on  behalf  of  the  client,' 
or  on  account  of  “labor”  payrolls. 

This  brings  up  the  point  that  no  sharp  and  invariable  line  can  be: 
defined  between  what  are  and  are  not  “materials”  or  “labor”  in  the 
meaning  of  the  Statement.  The  pencils  used  by  a landscape  architect 
in  making  his  studies  are  in  fact  materials,  but  common  sense  shows  that 
it  would  be  ridiculous  to  attempt  to  charge  them  up  in  detail  at  exact' 
cost  to  every  client  for  whom  a landscape  architect  works.  They  are 
lumped  in  as  a part  of  the  overhead  cost  of  his  business  by  the  landscape 
architect,  and  the  charges  which  pay  for  his  services  go  in  part  to  meet- 
ing these  overhead  expenses.  It  might  be  an  amusing  hair-splitting, 
academic  question  for  accountants  to  say  whether  his  lump  charges  for 
services  should  or  should  not  be  regarded  as  including  a minute  element 
of  “profit”  on  such  materials  used  in  rendering  the  service;  but  so  long 
as  such  theoretical  profit  is  utterly  negligible  in  amount  and  has  no 
practical  influence  upon  his  total  charges,  the  question  remains  academic 
and  of  not  the  slightest  consequence.  If  the  materials  which  he  thus 
buys  and  uses  in  performing  his  services  should  become  so  abnormally 
costly  in  any  special  case  or  cases  that  he  is  forced  to  take  special  account 


WHAT  IS  “ PROFESSIONAL “ PRACTICE f 


Hi 

of  them  in  fixing  his  total  compensation,  he  would  do  well  in  such  a 
case  to  arrange  for  charging  them  up  to  the  client  in  detail  at  cost,  or  if 
the  cost  cannot  be  fixed  with  absolute  precision,  at  an  approximation  to 
cost  so  close  that  no  possible  element  of  profit  in  the  transaction  sub- 
stantially influences  the  amount  of  his  bills.  If  he  goes  beyond  that 
point  he  is  substantially  open  to  the  charge  of  deriving  his  compensation 
from  a “commercial  profit  on  materials  used.” 

The  case  is  sometimes  more  perplexing  as  to  “labor.”  The  labor 
of  his  office  boy  or  his  stenographer  is  ordinarily  charged  to  a landscape 
architect’s  overhead  expense  along  with  his  office  rent,  and  its  cost  is 
recouped  (with  or  without  a theoretical  but  wholly  negligible  “profit”) 
out  of  his  total  charges  to  clients.  The  same  is  true  of  the  labor  of 
draftsmen  and  other  assistants  only  in  case  the  landscape  architect’s 
fixed  fee  covers  their  services  as  well  as  his  own  (whether  it  be  a lump 
sum  fee,  or  an  acreage  fee,  or  a fee  based  on  a percentage  of  “total  cost”). 
The  cost  of  the  services  of  such  assistants  varies  widely  in  different  kinds 
of  jobs.  As  long  as  it  is  small  relatively  to  the  charge  for  his  personal 
services  the  question  of  a “profit”  on  it  is  academic  and  negligible. 
But  it  may  legitimately,  and  in  the  client’s  best  interests,  become  very 
large  in  some  cases,  far  exceeding  the  charge  for  the  landscape  architect’s 
own  personal  services.  In  such  cases  the  question  of  whether  the  charge 
for  the  “labor”  of  assistants  includes  a substantial  profit  becomes  pro- 
fessionally important. 

Absolutely  no  hard  and  fast  line  based  upon  the  character  of  the 
work  done  can  be  so  drawn  as  to  separate  that  which  is  “labor”  from 
that  which  is  some  kind  of  highbrow-stuff  distinguishable  from  “labor.” 
A landscape  architect’s  planting  assistant  may  just  as  legitimately  and 
just  as  professionally  set  a plant  with  his  own  hands,  if  that  is  an 
efficient  way  to  get  the  best  results,  as  to  draw  plans  and  give  long 
explanations  of  how  he  wants  it  done. 

In  the  interest  of  the  best  art  we  should  not  interpose  any  artificial 
barriers  tending  to  keep  the  landscape  architect  and  his  regular  trained 


LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTURE 


142 

assistants  at  arm’s  length  from  the  work.  The  closer  the  personal  contact 
and  responsibility  for  details  the  better  for  the  work. 

What  then  is  to  prevent  a landscape  architect  from  gradually  increas- 
ing the  functions  assumed  by  his  employees  until  they  are  doing  a large 
part  of  the  “labor”  of  a job,  in  any  common-sense  use  of  the  word  labor? 

Nothing,  except  the  objection  previously  raised  against  his  habitually 
undertaking  executive  functions  at  the  expense  of  his  proper  emphasis 
upon  the  functions  of  design,  provided  he  is  not  making  a “commercial 
profit”  on  the  labor  of  his  assistants.  In  any  case  where  the  pay  of  his 
employees  is  likely  to  be  more  than  a minor  item  in  the  total  which  he 
charges  against  his  client  he  ought,  I believe,  to  avoid  charging  for  their 
work  on  a lump  sum  basis; or  on  any  basis  which  fixes  his  total  compensa- 
tion without  regard  to  the  amount  which  he  pays  out  to  his  employees, 
and  which  leaves  him  to  make  a considerable  speculative  profit  or  loss 
on  the  transaction  according  to  whether  they  “get  away”  with  doing 
only  a little  work  on  the  job  or  put  in  a great  deal  of  work. 

This  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  I think  the  method  of  charging  an 
agreed  lump  sum  fee  to  cover  professional  services  and  expenses,  should 
not  be  used  where  so  large  an  amount  of  assistants’  services  is  involved 
that  the  compensation  for  the  personal  services  of  the  landscape  archi- 
tect becomes  a minor  item  in  his  total  bill. 

The  same  objection  of  course  holds  against  a fee  fixed  by  a percentage 
relation  to  the  total  cost  where  that  fee  is  intended  to  cover  a large 
amount  of  assistants’  services. 

But  in  view  of  the  actual  custom  of  some  entirely  reputable  land- 
scape architects,  and  of  most  architects,  of  charging  on  the  basis  last 
mentioned,  it  would  be  quixotic  today  to  regard  it  as  unprofessional 
provided  the  practitioner  who  uses  it  is  scruplously  careful  to  confine 
the  work  covered  by  such  a fee  well  within  the  customary  limits  of  mak- 
ing plans  and  other  office  work  and  occasional  supervision,  and  to  avoid 
any  obligation  under  such  a contract  of  furnishing  what  might  possibly 
be  construed  as  “labor.” 


WHAT  IS  “PROFESSIONAL”  PRACTICE ? 


143 


Any  method  of  charging  a client  for  the  services  of  a landscape 
architect’s  employees  which  avoids  the  possibility  either  of  substantial 
speculative  profit  or  of  considerable  loss  from  this  source  leaves  the 
landscape  architect  free  to  use  his  best  judgment,  substantially  without 
the  bias  of  financial  self-interest  and  without  the  suspicion  thereof,  in 
deciding  what  work  and  how  much  work  to  have  done  by  his  own  em- 
ployees for  the  client,  and  what  to  have  done  by  others  not  on  his  own 
payroll.  He  is  then  in  the  best  position  to  establish  the  value  of  the 
skilled  and  disinterested  service  which  he  renders  in  deciding  such 
questions  and  in  the  general  direction  of  the  work,  and  to  charge  for 
that  service  known  fees  properly  commensurate  with  its  value. 

A method  of  charging  for  the  services  of  assistants  without  sub- 
stantial speculative  profit  or  loss  must  take  account  of  the  indirect  costs 
or  overhead  expenses.  No  such  method  can  be  absolutely  exact,  because 
the  apportionment  of  general  overhead  expenses  among  many  different 
jobs  served  by  the  facilities  which  are  represented  in  the  overhead 
expense  is  always  a matter  of  somewhat  arbitrary  judgment.  A rough 
approximation  is  enough,  if  it  is  intelligently  scrutinized  from  time  to 
time  and  readjusted  with  an  honest , common-sense  attempt  to  make  it 
reasonably  fair. 

A brief  reference  to  the  history  of  this  matter  in  the  Olmsted 
firm  will  help  to  indicate  at  least  what  I believe  to  be  the  right 
tendency. 

Forty  years  ago  the  usual  method  of  the  firm  was  to  charge  a lump 
sum  fee  which  covered  the  services  both  of  members  of  the  firm  and  of 
assistants,  and  the  general  overhead  expenses,  with  provision  in  some 
cases  for  charging  separately  in  addition  only  certain  specified,  easily 
segregated  and  directly  chargeable  items  like  traveling  expenses.  The 
office  force  was  small  and  a large  part  of  the  working  up  of  details  was 
apt  to  be  done  by  employees  of  the  client,  often  recommended  for 
employment  by  the  firm,  and  working  on  the  job  under  the  advice  and 
supervision  of  the  firm.  In  case  of  large  works  extending  over  a consider- 


144 


LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTURE 


able  period  there  is  much  to  be  said  for  this  method  of  pushing  the  details 
of  designing  out  on  to  the  job  itself. 

But  as  circumstances  made  it  appear  desirable  in  the  client’s  interest 
in  more  and  more  cases  to  have  a large  amount  of  detailed  plan  work, 
etc.,  done  by  office  assistants,  the  practice  grew  up  of  charging  for  these 
assistants’  services  separately  from  the  fee  at  the  direct  cost  of  these 
services,  the  overhead  expenses  of  the  office  being  still  covered  by  the 
professional  fee. 

About  twenty-five  years  ago,  the  size  of  the  office  having  grown 
pretty  large,  it  became  apparent  that  this  method  often  resulted  in  a loss, 
and  anyhow  was  undesirably  speculative  because  much  of  the  overhead 
expenses  such  as  rent,  light,  heat,  drafting  materials,  equipment,  etc., 
(not  to  mention  the  cost  of  idle  time  of  assistants,  “ready  to  serve’’) 
were  much  more  nearly  proportional  to  the  amount  of  assistants’ 
services  used  on  a given  job  than  to  the  personal  services  of  the  firm. 
Therefore  the  method  followed  in  many  engineers’  offices  was  adopted, 
namely  charging  up  assistants’  services  at  twice  the  rate  per  hour  at 
which  those  assistants  were  paid,  in  order  to  cover  overhead  expense, 
while  the  “professional  average  fee’’  (which  appeared  on  the  bills 
separately  from  the  charge  for  assistants’  services)  was  reduced  so  as  to 
represent  more  nearly  the  value  of  the  personal  services  rendered  by 
members  of  the  firm. 

It  was  found  that  year  in  and  year  out  this  method  of  charging  for 
assistants’  services  covered,  in  the  gross,  the  entire  direct  cost  of  the 
assistants’  services  and  the  entire  overhead  expenses  of  the  office  with  a 
margin  of  “profit”  which  in  some  years  reached  as  much  as  1 8 to  20  per 
cent.  We  came  to  regard  this  as  not  a sufficiently  fair  approximation, 
especially  as  between  different  jobs,  and  it  became  the  practice  to  make 
an  arbitrary  and  voluntary  scaling  down  of  the  100  per  cent  “margin” 
n special  cases  where  it  seemed  unfair  to  the  client. 

Later,  with  the  gradual  improvement  of  our  cost  accounting 
methods,  differentiations  were  made  between  several  classes  of  assis- 


WHAT  IS  “PROFESSIONAL”  PRACTICE? 


145 


tants’  services  which  plainly  involved  different  proportions  of  overhead 
expense,  different  rates  of  “margins”  were  charged  on  these  different 
classes,  and  at  the  end  of  each  year  the  different  items  of  actual  over- 
head expense  were  apportioned  against  the  several  “departments” 
thus  established  with  a real  effort  to  make  the  apportionment  approxi- 
mately fair.  At  present  the  “margins”  for  meeting  overhead  expense 
vary  from  25  per  cent  to  80  per  cent  on  the  pay  of  different  classes  of 
assistants  for  those  hours  during  which  their  time  is  directly  chargeable 
to  specific  work  orders.  Of  the  total  overhead  expenses  about  one 
quarter  is  charged  against  the  personal  professional  services  of  the  firm 
as  representing  the  amount  of  rent,  etc.,  and  clerical  assistance,  etc., 
and  equipment,  library,  etc.,  which  the  firm  would  require  if  the  drafting 
and  other  directly  chargeable  assistants’  services,  together  with  their 
necessary  overhead  expenses,  were  furnished  by  the  clients  themselves, 
as  they  are  in  the  case  of  some  well  organized  municipal  departments 
which  we  serve  in  a consulting  capacity. 

When  we  see  that  with  the  margins  charged  any  “department,” 
other  than  the  personal  professional  services  of  the  firm,  is  beginning  to 
show  a continuing  loss,  or  a “gain”  so  considerable  as  to  be  more  than  a 
reasonable  assurance  against  occasional  losses,  we  endeavor  to  readjust 
the  margins  more  equitably. 

This  is  primarily  a system  of  cost  accounting  and  is  followed  for 
our  own  information  even  in  those  cases  where  we  contract  with  a 
client  to  furnish  certain  services  for  a specified  lump  sum,  or  within  an 
agreed  maximum  cost.  It  enables  us  to  know  with  tolerable  precision 
at  any  time  what  each  work  is  costing  us,  including  its  fair  share  of 
overhead  expense. 

But  in  the  majority  of  cases  our  contracts  with  clients  provide  for 
charging  a fee  for  the  personal  services  of  the  firm,  plus  expenses  as 
actually  incurred  from  time  to  time,  “expenses”  being  defined  as  includ- 
ing pay  of  assistants  together  with  the  corresponding  share  of  overhead 
expense.  We  are  then  substantially  in  the  position  of  a trusted  employee 


146 


LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTURE 


on  a salary,  who  either  employs  subordinates  in  the  service  of  his 
employer  at  his  employer’s  expense  (without  profit  or  loss  to  himself),  or 
delegates  work  to  contractors,  as  may  seem  most  advantageous  to  his 
employer. 

Under  this  system  we  feel  at  liberty  and  our  clients  are  glad  to  have 
us  feel  at  liberty  to  send  our  own  assistants  to  a job,  and  have  them  stay 
as  long  as  necessary,  and  do  whatever  work  is  necessary  in  the  client’s 
interest  to  get  the  desired  results  if  that  seems  more  expedient  for  the 
client  than  having  such  work  done  by  people  not  in  our  employ. 

We  do,  however,  systematically  try  to  avoid  getting  our  organization 
needlessly  entangled  in  executive  work  which  can  be  efficiently  done  by 
others  and  which  might  interfere  with  our  proper  professional  concen- 
tration on  problems  of  design. 

There  is  no  sense  in  a pharisaical  attitude  of  adhering  mechanically 
to  any  single  precisely  defined  method  as  the  sure  way  of  salvation, 
and  of  regarding  all  others  as  necessarily  “unclean.”  The  real  point  is  to 
use  common  sense,  honesty,  and  a constant  scrutiny  of  the  effect  and 
tendency  of  one’s  methods  in  the  light  of  three  principles: 

1.  That  the  professional  landscape  architect  assumes  a fiduciary 
obligation  to  give  only  such  advice  and  take  only  such  action  as  will 
best  serve  the  client’s  legitimate  interests. 

2.  That  in  consonance  with  this  obligation  he  must  avoid  putting 
himself  in  a position  where  his  advice  or  actions  might  be  influenced 
adversely  to  his  client’s  interest  by  regard  for  his  own  financial  interest 
in  possible  speculative  or  commercial  profits. 

3.  That  his  primary  function  is  design,  and  that  he  should  avoid 
putting  himself  in  a position  likely  to  emphasize  executive  or  managerial 
functions  at  the  expense  of  the  function  of  design. 


